Class 212 and 214 Boats

[Amizaur]

Well, ultimate shallow water sub. Very smal, very capable, very quiet, very hard to detect on active sonar, no MAD signature (or minimal), good weapons (and with Black Shark torpedo even better). And what is most impressive, it's AIP propulsion with hydrogen fuel cells and revolutional way of storing the hydrogen. No need to snorkel for weeks, so even harder to detect it...

When given no MAD signature and very small active sonar tgt, would be ultimate enemy to hunt for both AIR platforms :-) And could kill a Seawolf in shallow water probably, det ranges could be around 1000yds or less for both (IRL) so who fires first wins.

[aaken]

What makes you think it will be difficult to detect on active sonar? It may be small for nukes but has a nice section of 7 meters in diameter nonetheless. There are much smaller diesel subs than that. I would immagine that the "little ones" produced in Europe in the 60s-70s (like the Type206 with 450 tonns or the italian Toti SSK with 580 tonns) were very difficult to detect on active sonar.
For example, from experience, three sikorsky sh3d could have a very hard time to get a fix on that little bastard Toti SSK down in the Med, if he had a layer. And this doesn't mean in littoral waters but in open sea. Many times in exercises with the 6th fleet those boats managed to sink the carrier, and quite a few times they did that without being counterdetected.

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by aaken

What makes you think it will be difficult to detect on active sonar? It may be small for nukes but has a nice section of 7 meters in diameter nonetheless. There are much smaller diesel subs than that.

It's not only size that counts, it's also materials and shape. The B-2 is larger than F-16 but has smaller RCS because of both shape and materials.
Type-212 is said to has not only anti-sonar coating but also shape of it's composite outside hull is designed to reduce strength of sonar returns.

[XabbaRus]

Well I have a 214 modelled and I think kind of painted.

aaken when will you be online to help me transfer to J3D?

[aaken]

Send it over by mail.
I'm usually online on MSN.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Ok, so then very small MAD signature for both...

And the sonar cross section of a cola cane.

It is so quiet that little background noise is enough and it becomes undetectable on passive sonar even from close range.

I heared a lot about it and what I heard is yaw dropping.

The diving depth is so big that it can simple outdive all current ASW weapons. Boy don't let me get into the 212.

I was told about a maneuver with a 212 vs an US asw groupe that took one month. Every time the ASW group thought it found the boat and surrounded it the 212 pinged them way outside the circle ruining their day and the search began from scratch again. Slowly one by one the 212 took each of the ships out till no one was left. Its crew must have had a lot of fun

This boat is outrages. You don't even need to send it out. Rummors should be enought to scare everyone away.

[SandyCaesar]

Amina! I'd hate to have to go up against one of them in littoral waters. (Open-ocean is a little different, as the nuke's endurance is definitely better for open-ocean or offensive operations.) But defensively...I want one.

Originally Posted by Smaragdadler

Type U212A

Type U214

So, the Dive Planes are not on the sail but on the hull. I have read that when they are on the sail, they are more effective on slow speeds, which means 212-A would have better manouverability. Bad point about planes on sail is - that they can brake off if you try to surface through ice. This means 214 is good for under ice-ops and 212A not?

I will have to dispute that point, two years later. AFAIK, the US Sturgeon class had sail-mounted diving planes, and were still capable of under-ice operations. The sails were supposed to be able to fold up against the sail to help breach the ice.

What I want to know, however, is their sonar capabilities. I know that this is a very sensitive topic, but theoretically wouldn't nukes have the edge here? Nukes can house a towed-array, which admittedly wouldn't be that useful in a littoral environment, and can have loads of hull-arrays, which diesel boats simply don't have (one or two conformal arrays--not enough to range-gate passively).

So, on the whole, AIP-diesel boats make for deadly littoral hunters, but nukes generally have the advantage in reach, range, and open-ocean ops.

Oh, and one last question: what kind of engine is MESMA (Scorpene class)? How does it work? And as for the Stirling engines (Gotland), considering they're modified diesels running closed-circuit: just how quiet are they, anyway?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SandyCaesar

What I want to know, however, is their sonar capabilities. I know that this is a very sensitive topic, but theoretically wouldn't nukes have the edge here? Nukes can house a towed-array, which admittedly wouldn't be that useful in a littoral environment, and can have loads of hull-arrays, which diesel boats simply don't have (one or two conformal arrays--not enough to range-gate passively).

Say again !!

Sonar suite

The vessel's sonar suite includes a long-range passive cylindrical array, an intercept sonar, active sonar, distributed array, flank array, a high-resolution sonar for mine and obstacle avoidance and a towed array.

Source : http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/scorpene/

Its not about the type 212/214 but the french equivalent scorpene.

[SandyCaesar]

Ah. I take that back. Thanks, Goldorak.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I have a model of that sitting on my HDD.

I built one too but the masts were ruined by someone while I put it on display so I gave it away

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by aaken

but the 214 has smaller underwater range on the AIP than the 212/212A (around 15 days at 5 kts against 25-28 days at same speed).

Don't let you deceive by any official data. Its true capeabilities are much greater than what is being officialy admitted. It has been said that it actually can operate the entire patrol without snurkeling.

Many of the signatures are completely eliminated. It has been also stated that besides the little emissions it makes the 212 has a special new stealth technology that makes it undetectable but it hasn't been said what the nature of it is. At least the periscope cannot be detected on radar. This boat has gone completely steath.

This is the german sea wolf class if not even better. And btw on the 212 they fianlly use waterfall displays.

Concerning the steel I think the HY 80 was used for the 212.

As for the only battery set used in 212, that's because there is not enogh space in the after part (the one with a smaller diameter)

But you could also say that's because it has an AIP now so it is not anymore so dependant on batteries, hence they made it smaller and besides that this new batteries have surely a much higher capacity than thous on the older boats.

[OneShot]

Actually the German 212A just like its predecessor the 206A is made of amagnetic steel. Guess thats kinda hard on the MAD sensor of flying platforms.

Here is a pretty good Wikipedia link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

[Kpt. Weyprecht]

I know this thread starts aging a little bit but I stalked over it and couldn't help myself asking - if the Germans start using waterfall displays on the 212, then what did they use before?

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Weyprecht

I know this thread starts aging a little bit but I stalked over it and couldn't help myself asking - if the Germans start using waterfall displays on the 212, then what did they use before?

It appears to me that on the type 206a, they used a sort of circular visualization, similar to what you see in DW on the russian boats, which seems to be displayed ontop of the tactical/nav map. But it don't seem to update so fast like it happens in DW.

[dyshman]

in new release of RA addon ssk 212 will be playable! new screen-shots awailable on (WIP 70%)
http://redrodgers.com/forums/showthr...6469#post96469